GOP policies are wrong for Colorado and for America. Their policies for less government and less regulation tanked our economy through fraud and bankruptcy on a global scale! In addition, their pursuit of oil investment wealth for the 1% got us into a criminal war! Mitt, Newt, Ron and Rick are not focused on American interests but instead are driven with global investments and economies. You are not lucid advocating the GOP choice. The GOP advocated the failure of our auto, bank, and mortgage industries and national budgets. Through State legislation, they also deny Americans health and privacy rights for all. Get real!

epigonigrp wrote:And as I indicated in my first post, children with opinions are the single most damning thing about supporting R. Paul.

Not all of us who support Ron Paul are young (though we are young at heart).

Young people, however, have the most to gain - or lose by the upcoming election. They are the ones who will be sent to war - whether they believe in that war or not. They are the ones who will have the hardest time finding a job in a ruined economy - or lose their jobs when the inevitable bubbles burst. It is todays young who will carry the burden of taxation when "austerity measures" are implemented here as they are in europe. It is the young who will be forced to support the elderly who will have lost their savings and investments due to inflation.

Um, the draft has not been used since the 1970's, so your first statement flies in the face of reality. Experience always trumps youth in the job market, so your next point is irrelevant.

Yes, they will carry a tax burden, but you have in no way established that R. Paul will in any way fix that problem.

So I fail to understand the point in your response to me.

I never said anything about the draft - but I do notice that most of the people I've met that have come back from service in Iraq and Afghanistan are young. However, it doesn't take much imagination to see that if these wars get out of hand that they would institue a draft.

When the job market is tight - those without experience obviously lose their jobs. If we had a stable economy - perhaps the job market would not be so tight and the young and old would both have expanding opportunities and prosperity.

Cutting the size and expense of government will obviouly reduce the tax burden on all. Ron Paul has specific plans to cut one trillion dollars from the budget in his first year in office.

Finally, sir, I don't believe you are interested in understanding - only argument.

Ron Paul is an ideologue that has often stated that his positions are non negotiable and as his positions will simply not be accepted in Congress, there is no room for a Paul administration and Congress to work together.

If Congress actually upholds and defends the United States Constitution as they swore to, there is absolutely no reason that Ron Paul and Congress can work together. Defending individual liberty and constitutional restraints IS non-negotiable, and always should have been.

His idea to return to the gold standard is a global disaster waiting to happen and that kind of economic policy simply will not find acceptance in Congress.

On what basis do you make this claim? That the last 99 years of Federal Reserve management has devalued our currency 95%? That our fiat currency is returning to its intrinsic value of paper? You wish to continue inflationary and debasement policies that pillage the value of our savings, forcing us to risk our earnings SIMPLY TO MAINTAIN THEIR VALUE?

He would abandon our allies across the globe more than the empty suit in office currently and leave the US in even more of an isolated position. He is blatantly anti-Semitic and for that reason alone is unelectable. His stance on Iran is foolish and would go a long way to further destabilize the Middle East.

No. He would insist on allowing the Israelis a free hand to defend themselves as need be, and to pay for their own defense. Likewise with Europe. It’s about time they grew up and learned to take care of themselves without having to fall back on the United States military. This is not anti-semitic. It is merely recognizing that we should not be spending American blood and dollars every time another nation begs us to. Furthermore, when American interests are threatened abroad, Ron Paul would ask Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty, pass a declaration of war, and thus fully commit to seeing a conflict through, rather than shirk their responsibility and try to undermine the effort at every turn, as happened in the previous decade.

But the most damning point against Paul is that so many young people support him. These are the same young people that voted BHO into office and the same young people that do not have nearly enough life experience to really know what the hell they are talking about.

Blatant generalization without any basis in fact. The younger generation is tired of seeing itself indebted by the establishment statists. They are tired of our individual liberties being infringed upon. They are tired of our constitutional charter being ignored. Whether you elect Obama or Romney, that infringement is all that you will get. There is no real difference between the two, or any other establishment candidate.

The only candidate who will effect meaningful change towards sound monetary policy, sound fiscal policy, and a commitment to individual liberty is Ron Paul.

I agree with your first statement. There is no reason a Paul administration and Congress can work together. Just as I stated. Thank you.

Your ignorance of why we support Israel is the flaw in your argument. We provide Israel approx. 5 billion per year in foreign aid per year. The next highest recipient is Egypt. We keep these nations military strong so as to provide stability on that side of the Middle East.

The truth of my statement is that the US has not had to put boots on the ground on that side of the Middle East since the 1960's. This is part of a plan known as Pax Americana.

I need to correct you. Check out this map which shows military troops and bases all over the world. Remeber, if you make a statement, then you have to be able to back it up with proof. Here is the proof that you are incorrect.

Now contrast that to the Persian Gulf side of the Middle East. Two wars and US boots on the ground at a cost of over 2 trillion USD.

It doesn't take but a simpleton to understand the effectiveness of the policy to support Israel, and the cost savings for doing so. Paul doesn't seem to grasp that, and that is both comical and tragic. And a huge red flag as to the rest of his foreign policy.

It is very difficult to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy if you believe that it is ok to dump money into a country who has no interest in peace.

Oh, and he has publicly made statements that can only be interpreted as racist and biased against Jews.

But hey ignorance is bliss.

Exactly my point. I hope you enjoy your ignorance.

And lastly, but not least, I'll point out that an administration that cannot work with Congress is an administration that is doomed to fail. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot grasp current events. Ron Paul's ideologies are non negotiable per his own statements, and they clearly will not find traction in Congress. That leaves no room for a compromise.

So your pie in the sky outlook is not supported by the reality of politics. And all your crap about defending the Constitution is simply not cogent and betrays your youthful lack of understanding of the political process.

And really sport, you youngsters are simply too young to be tired about seeing anything happen, as you've not lived long enough to see enough of it yet.

And my last comment to your ramblings would be to inform you how rude you sound if you think that young people are not educated or old enough to know who to vote for. Ron Paul has young folks and elderly who support him. I guess everyone, who does not agree with you must just have an opinion without having actuall knowledge of what is going on. Keep living in your fantasy world.

Your ignorance of why we support Israel is the flaw in your argument. We provide Israel approx. 5 billion per year in foreign aid per year. The next highest recipient is Egypt. We keep these nations military strong so as to provide stability on that side of the Middle East.

The truth of my statement is that the US has not had to put boots on the ground on that side of the Middle East since the 1960's. This is part of a plan known as Pax Americana.

I need to correct you. Check out this map which shows military troops and bases all over the world. Remeber, if you make a statement, then you have to be able to back it up with proof. Here is the proof that you are incorrect.

Now contrast that to the Persian Gulf side of the Middle East. Two wars and US boots on the ground at a cost of over 2 trillion USD.

It doesn't take but a simpleton to understand the effectiveness of the policy to support Israel, and the cost savings for doing so. Paul doesn't seem to grasp that, and that is both comical and tragic. And a huge red flag as to the rest of his foreign policy.

It is very difficult to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy if you believe that it is ok to dump money into a country who has no interest in peace.

Oh, and he has publicly made statements that can only be interpreted as racist and biased against Jews.

But hey ignorance is bliss.

Exactly my point. I hope you enjoy your ignorance.

And lastly, but not least, I'll point out that an administration that cannot work with Congress is an administration that is doomed to fail. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot grasp current events. Ron Paul's ideologies are non negotiable per his own statements, and they clearly will not find traction in Congress. That leaves no room for a compromise.

So your pie in the sky outlook is not supported by the reality of politics. And all your crap about defending the Constitution is simply not cogent and betrays your youthful lack of understanding of the political process.

And really sport, you youngsters are simply too young to be tired about seeing anything happen, as you've not lived long enough to see enough of it yet.

And my last comment to your ramblings would be to inform you how rude you sound if you think that young people are not educated or old enough to know who to vote for. Ron Paul has young folks and elderly who support him. I guess everyone, who does not agree with you must just have an opinion without having actuall knowledge of what is going on. Keep living in your fantasy world.

The US in fact has no military base on the Suez side of the Middle East. We have as part of a UN mandate less than one company of US troops in Egypt. So your point is without merit. And you have in fact not refuted my assertion that Pax Americana has been both effective in removing the need for the US to deploy military forces on the Suez side of the Middle East, and has been cost effective when compared to the expenditures in both treasure and US blood on Persian Gulf side of the Middle East.

Or perhaps you failed to balance that little fact that the US has not had a drop of blood spilled on that side of the Middle East.

Your second assertion that Israel is not interested in peace is not supported, so it is only your opinion, and is not based on fact, and does not constitute a valid argument.

A person of the the age of 18 is legally able to vote, so I do not in fact question their right to vote, but I do question their life experience, and their ability to fully understand issues that are global in nature and pertinent to the US domestically as well.

Perhaps in the world you live in young people are sprouted with perfect knowledge, but in the world that I live in perfect knowledge only comes with experience, and experience is gained over time.

epigonigrp wrote:And as I indicated in my first post, children with opinions are the single most damning thing about supporting R. Paul.

Not all of us who support Ron Paul are young (though we are young at heart).

Young people, however, have the most to gain - or lose by the upcoming election. They are the ones who will be sent to war - whether they believe in that war or not. They are the ones who will have the hardest time finding a job in a ruined economy - or lose their jobs when the inevitable bubbles burst. It is todays young who will carry the burden of taxation when "austerity measures" are implemented here as they are in europe. It is the young who will be forced to support the elderly who will have lost their savings and investments due to inflation.

Um, the draft has not been used since the 1970's, so your first statement flies in the face of reality. Experience always trumps youth in the job market, so your next point is irrelevant.

Yes, they will carry a tax burden, but you have in no way established that R. Paul will in any way fix that problem.

So I fail to understand the point in your response to me.

I never said anything about the draft - but I do notice that most of the people I've met that have come back from service in Iraq and Afghanistan are young. However, it doesn't take much imagination to see that if these wars get out of hand that they would institue a draft.

When the job market is tight - those without experience obviously lose their jobs. If we had a stable economy - perhaps the job market would not be so tight and the young and old would both have expanding opportunities and prosperity.

Cutting the size and expense of government will obviouly reduce the tax burden on all. Ron Paul has specific plans to cut one trillion dollars from the budget in his first year in office.

Finally, sir, I don't believe you are interested in understanding - only argument.

The purpose of the military is two fold:

Preparation for war & war proper - per Clausewitz "On War"

Since our military is voluntary, and accepting that the above is true, (and since Clausewitz is taught at our Military Colleges, it can be stated with accuracy that his work is accepted doctrine of the US military) anyone that volunteers to be in the military will knowingly do so with the intention of fulfilling those two above mentioned roles.

Therefore, they have agreed beforehand to accept the mission to project US political will when it is deemed necessary. So your point is moot and is really nothing more than an attempt at poor sentimentality which of course is an invalid argument form.

And lastly, the president cannot simply cut government unilaterally. He must have the cooperation of Congress. Hence my point.

Between 2002 to 2011, Zurich bankers conspired to help U.S. taxpayers cheat on their taxes. Wegelin Bank held 1.2 billion in assets not declared to the IRS. Should newspapers endorse candidates before we know all the facts about offshore accounts???

Your ignorance of why we support Israel is the flaw in your argument. We provide Israel approx. 5 billion per year in foreign aid per year. The next highest recipient is Egypt. We keep these nations military strong so as to provide stability on that side of the Middle East.

The truth of my statement is that the US has not had to put boots on the ground on that side of the Middle East since the 1960's. This is part of a plan known as Pax Americana.

I need to correct you. Check out this map which shows military troops and bases all over the world. Remeber, if you make a statement, then you have to be able to back it up with proof. Here is the proof that you are incorrect.

Now contrast that to the Persian Gulf side of the Middle East. Two wars and US boots on the ground at a cost of over 2 trillion USD.

It doesn't take but a simpleton to understand the effectiveness of the policy to support Israel, and the cost savings for doing so. Paul doesn't seem to grasp that, and that is both comical and tragic. And a huge red flag as to the rest of his foreign policy.

It is very difficult to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy if you believe that it is ok to dump money into a country who has no interest in peace.

Oh, and he has publicly made statements that can only be interpreted as racist and biased against Jews.

But hey ignorance is bliss.

Exactly my point. I hope you enjoy your ignorance.

And lastly, but not least, I'll point out that an administration that cannot work with Congress is an administration that is doomed to fail. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot grasp current events. Ron Paul's ideologies are non negotiable per his own statements, and they clearly will not find traction in Congress. That leaves no room for a compromise.

So your pie in the sky outlook is not supported by the reality of politics. And all your crap about defending the Constitution is simply not cogent and betrays your youthful lack of understanding of the political process.

And really sport, you youngsters are simply too young to be tired about seeing anything happen, as you've not lived long enough to see enough of it yet.

And my last comment to your ramblings would be to inform you how rude you sound if you think that young people are not educated or old enough to know who to vote for. Ron Paul has young folks and elderly who support him. I guess everyone, who does not agree with you must just have an opinion without having actuall knowledge of what is going on. Keep living in your fantasy world.

The US in fact has no military base on the Suez side of the Middle East. We have as part of a UN mandate less than one company of US troops in Egypt. So your point is without merit. And you have in fact not refuted my assertion that Pax Americana has been both effective in removing the need for the US to deploy military forces on the Suez side of the Middle East, and has been cost effective when compared to the expenditures in both treasure and US blood on Persian Gulf side of the Middle East.

Or perhaps you failed to balance that little fact that the US has not had a drop of blood spilled on that side of the Middle East.

Your second assertion that Israel is not interested in peace is not supported, so it is only your opinion, and is not based on fact, and does not constitute a valid argument.

A person of the the age of 18 is legally able to vote, so I do not in fact question their right to vote, but I do question their life experience, and their ability to fully understand issues that are global in nature and pertinent to the US domestically as well.

Perhaps in the world you live in young people are sprouted with perfect knowledge, but in the world that I live in perfect knowledge only comes with experience, and experience is gained over time.

So much for fantasy land.

Oh, and actual is spelled with one "l".

Let me repeat the statement I made earlier about military troops and bases. Military troops and bases are all over the world. Again, look it up. It is not difficult to find. It does not matter if there is less than one company in Egypt or 50. What matters is the fact that they are there. It is called logic. Why don’t do you more research? I’ll bet you will be astounded at the fact of how many US soldiers you will find stationed overseas.

I did not agree nor disagree with you on Pax Americana, so please do not get ahead of yourself and read something that is not even there.

Since you truly believe that the US had no casualties on the other side of the Suez Canal, I would like you to provide me with some proof.

In addition, if you think that my assertion about Israel not wanting peace is just an opinion and not a fact, then please provide me with proof that I’m wrong. Show me that Israel is working towards a peaceful agreement with Palestine. Please don’t give me talking points, just show me proof.

Lol….perfect knowledge come with experience???? Sorry, but where I come from, perfect knowledge comes from the skill to know the difference between fact and opinion and to think for yourself instead of believing what the media or other people tell you. Add some common sense and wisdom and you might get close to obtaining perfect knowledge, but don’t get your hopes up.

Your ignorance of why we support Israel is the flaw in your argument. We provide Israel approx. 5 billion per year in foreign aid per year. The next highest recipient is Egypt. We keep these nations military strong so as to provide stability on that side of the Middle East.

The truth of my statement is that the US has not had to put boots on the ground on that side of the Middle East since the 1960's. This is part of a plan known as Pax Americana.

I need to correct you. Check out this map which shows military troops and bases all over the world. Remeber, if you make a statement, then you have to be able to back it up with proof. Here is the proof that you are incorrect.

Now contrast that to the Persian Gulf side of the Middle East. Two wars and US boots on the ground at a cost of over 2 trillion USD.

It doesn't take but a simpleton to understand the effectiveness of the policy to support Israel, and the cost savings for doing so. Paul doesn't seem to grasp that, and that is both comical and tragic. And a huge red flag as to the rest of his foreign policy.

It is very difficult to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy if you believe that it is ok to dump money into a country who has no interest in peace.

Oh, and he has publicly made statements that can only be interpreted as racist and biased against Jews.

But hey ignorance is bliss.

Exactly my point. I hope you enjoy your ignorance.

And lastly, but not least, I'll point out that an administration that cannot work with Congress is an administration that is doomed to fail. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot grasp current events. Ron Paul's ideologies are non negotiable per his own statements, and they clearly will not find traction in Congress. That leaves no room for a compromise.

So your pie in the sky outlook is not supported by the reality of politics. And all your crap about defending the Constitution is simply not cogent and betrays your youthful lack of understanding of the political process.

And really sport, you youngsters are simply too young to be tired about seeing anything happen, as you've not lived long enough to see enough of it yet.

And my last comment to your ramblings would be to inform you how rude you sound if you think that young people are not educated or old enough to know who to vote for. Ron Paul has young folks and elderly who support him. I guess everyone, who does not agree with you must just have an opinion without having actuall knowledge of what is going on. Keep living in your fantasy world.

The US in fact has no military base on the Suez side of the Middle East. We have as part of a UN mandate less than one company of US troops in Egypt. So your point is without merit. And you have in fact not refuted my assertion that Pax Americana has been both effective in removing the need for the US to deploy military forces on the Suez side of the Middle East, and has been cost effective when compared to the expenditures in both treasure and US blood on Persian Gulf side of the Middle East.

Or perhaps you failed to balance that little fact that the US has not had a drop of blood spilled on that side of the Middle East.

Your second assertion that Israel is not interested in peace is not supported, so it is only your opinion, and is not based on fact, and does not constitute a valid argument.

A person of the the age of 18 is legally able to vote, so I do not in fact question their right to vote, but I do question their life experience, and their ability to fully understand issues that are global in nature and pertinent to the US domestically as well.

Perhaps in the world you live in young people are sprouted with perfect knowledge, but in the world that I live in perfect knowledge only comes with experience, and experience is gained over time.

So much for fantasy land.

Oh, and actual is spelled with one "l".

Let me repeat the statement I made earlier about military troops and bases. Military troops and bases are all over the world. Again, look it up. It is not difficult to find. It does not matter if there is less than one company in Egypt or 50. What matters is the fact that they are there. It is called logic. Why don’t do you more research? I’ll bet you will be astounded at the fact of how many US soldiers you will find stationed overseas.

I did not agree nor disagree with you on Pax Americana, so please do not get ahead of yourself and read something that is not even there.

Since you truly believe that the US had no casualties on the other side of the Suez Canal, I would like you to provide me with some proof.

In addition, if you think that my assertion about Israel not wanting peace is just an opinion and not a fact, then please provide me with proof that I’m wrong. Show me that Israel is working towards a peaceful agreement with Palestine. Please don’t give me talking points, just show me proof.

Lol….perfect knowledge come with experience???? Sorry, but where I come from, perfect knowledge comes from the skill to know the difference between fact and opinion and to think for yourself instead of believing what the media or other people tell you. Add some common sense and wisdom and you might get close to obtaining perfect knowledge, but don’t get your hopes up.

Again you are just rambling but you can not back up your info.

You have refuted none of my assertions. Your post is nothing more than screed.

Your ignorance of why we support Israel is the flaw in your argument. We provide Israel approx. 5 billion per year in foreign aid per year. The next highest recipient is Egypt. We keep these nations military strong so as to provide stability on that side of the Middle East.

The truth of my statement is that the US has not had to put boots on the ground on that side of the Middle East since the 1960's. This is part of a plan known as Pax Americana.

I need to correct you. Check out this map which shows military troops and bases all over the world. Remeber, if you make a statement, then you have to be able to back it up with proof. Here is the proof that you are incorrect.

Now contrast that to the Persian Gulf side of the Middle East. Two wars and US boots on the ground at a cost of over 2 trillion USD.

It doesn't take but a simpleton to understand the effectiveness of the policy to support Israel, and the cost savings for doing so. Paul doesn't seem to grasp that, and that is both comical and tragic. And a huge red flag as to the rest of his foreign policy.

It is very difficult to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy if you believe that it is ok to dump money into a country who has no interest in peace.

Oh, and he has publicly made statements that can only be interpreted as racist and biased against Jews.

But hey ignorance is bliss.

Exactly my point. I hope you enjoy your ignorance.

And lastly, but not least, I'll point out that an administration that cannot work with Congress is an administration that is doomed to fail. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot grasp current events. Ron Paul's ideologies are non negotiable per his own statements, and they clearly will not find traction in Congress. That leaves no room for a compromise.

So your pie in the sky outlook is not supported by the reality of politics. And all your crap about defending the Constitution is simply not cogent and betrays your youthful lack of understanding of the political process.

And really sport, you youngsters are simply too young to be tired about seeing anything happen, as you've not lived long enough to see enough of it yet.

And my last comment to your ramblings would be to inform you how rude you sound if you think that young people are not educated or old enough to know who to vote for. Ron Paul has young folks and elderly who support him. I guess everyone, who does not agree with you must just have an opinion without having actuall knowledge of what is going on. Keep living in your fantasy world.

The US in fact has no military base on the Suez side of the Middle East. We have as part of a UN mandate less than one company of US troops in Egypt. So your point is without merit. And you have in fact not refuted my assertion that Pax Americana has been both effective in removing the need for the US to deploy military forces on the Suez side of the Middle East, and has been cost effective when compared to the expenditures in both treasure and US blood on Persian Gulf side of the Middle East.

Or perhaps you failed to balance that little fact that the US has not had a drop of blood spilled on that side of the Middle East.

Your second assertion that Israel is not interested in peace is not supported, so it is only your opinion, and is not based on fact, and does not constitute a valid argument.

A person of the the age of 18 is legally able to vote, so I do not in fact question their right to vote, but I do question their life experience, and their ability to fully understand issues that are global in nature and pertinent to the US domestically as well.

Perhaps in the world you live in young people are sprouted with perfect knowledge, but in the world that I live in perfect knowledge only comes with experience, and experience is gained over time.

So much for fantasy land.

Oh, and actual is spelled with one "l".

Let me repeat the statement I made earlier about military troops and bases. Military troops and bases are all over the world. Again, look it up. It is not difficult to find. It does not matter if there is less than one company in Egypt or 50. What matters is the fact that they are there. It is called logic. Why don’t do you more research? I’ll bet you will be astounded at the fact of how many US soldiers you will find stationed overseas.

I did not agree nor disagree with you on Pax Americana, so please do not get ahead of yourself and read something that is not even there.

Since you truly believe that the US had no casualties on the other side of the Suez Canal, I would like you to provide me with some proof.

In addition, if you think that my assertion about Israel not wanting peace is just an opinion and not a fact, then please provide me with proof that I’m wrong. Show me that Israel is working towards a peaceful agreement with Palestine. Please don’t give me talking points, just show me proof.

Lol….perfect knowledge come with experience???? Sorry, but where I come from, perfect knowledge comes from the skill to know the difference between fact and opinion and to think for yourself instead of believing what the media or other people tell you. Add some common sense and wisdom and you might get close to obtaining perfect knowledge, but don’t get your hopes up.

Again you are just rambling but you can not back up your info.

You have refuted none of my assertions. Your post is nothing more than screed.

Your ignorance of why we support Israel is the flaw in your argument. We provide Israel approx. 5 billion per year in foreign aid per year. The next highest recipient is Egypt. We keep these nations military strong so as to provide stability on that side of the Middle East.

The truth of my statement is that the US has not had to put boots on the ground on that side of the Middle East since the 1960's. This is part of a plan known as Pax Americana.

I need to correct you. Check out this map which shows military troops and bases all over the world. Remeber, if you make a statement, then you have to be able to back it up with proof. Here is the proof that you are incorrect.

Now contrast that to the Persian Gulf side of the Middle East. Two wars and US boots on the ground at a cost of over 2 trillion USD.

It doesn't take but a simpleton to understand the effectiveness of the policy to support Israel, and the cost savings for doing so. Paul doesn't seem to grasp that, and that is both comical and tragic. And a huge red flag as to the rest of his foreign policy.

It is very difficult to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy if you believe that it is ok to dump money into a country who has no interest in peace.

Oh, and he has publicly made statements that can only be interpreted as racist and biased against Jews.

But hey ignorance is bliss.

Exactly my point. I hope you enjoy your ignorance.

And lastly, but not least, I'll point out that an administration that cannot work with Congress is an administration that is doomed to fail. If you cannot grasp that, you cannot grasp current events. Ron Paul's ideologies are non negotiable per his own statements, and they clearly will not find traction in Congress. That leaves no room for a compromise.

So your pie in the sky outlook is not supported by the reality of politics. And all your crap about defending the Constitution is simply not cogent and betrays your youthful lack of understanding of the political process.

And really sport, you youngsters are simply too young to be tired about seeing anything happen, as you've not lived long enough to see enough of it yet.

And my last comment to your ramblings would be to inform you how rude you sound if you think that young people are not educated or old enough to know who to vote for. Ron Paul has young folks and elderly who support him. I guess everyone, who does not agree with you must just have an opinion without having actuall knowledge of what is going on. Keep living in your fantasy world.

The US in fact has no military base on the Suez side of the Middle East. We have as part of a UN mandate less than one company of US troops in Egypt. So your point is without merit. And you have in fact not refuted my assertion that Pax Americana has been both effective in removing the need for the US to deploy military forces on the Suez side of the Middle East, and has been cost effective when compared to the expenditures in both treasure and US blood on Persian Gulf side of the Middle East.

Or perhaps you failed to balance that little fact that the US has not had a drop of blood spilled on that side of the Middle East.

Your second assertion that Israel is not interested in peace is not supported, so it is only your opinion, and is not based on fact, and does not constitute a valid argument.

A person of the the age of 18 is legally able to vote, so I do not in fact question their right to vote, but I do question their life experience, and their ability to fully understand issues that are global in nature and pertinent to the US domestically as well.

Perhaps in the world you live in young people are sprouted with perfect knowledge, but in the world that I live in perfect knowledge only comes with experience, and experience is gained over time.

So much for fantasy land.

Oh, and actual is spelled with one "l".

Let me repeat the statement I made earlier about military troops and bases. Military troops and bases are all over the world. Again, look it up. It is not difficult to find. It does not matter if there is less than one company in Egypt or 50. What matters is the fact that they are there. It is called logic. Why don’t do you more research? I’ll bet you will be astounded at the fact of how many US soldiers you will find stationed overseas.

I did not agree nor disagree with you on Pax Americana, so please do not get ahead of yourself and read something that is not even there.

Since you truly believe that the US had no casualties on the other side of the Suez Canal, I would like you to provide me with some proof.

In addition, if you think that my assertion about Israel not wanting peace is just an opinion and not a fact, then please provide me with proof that I’m wrong. Show me that Israel is working towards a peaceful agreement with Palestine. Please don’t give me talking points, just show me proof.

Lol….perfect knowledge come with experience???? Sorry, but where I come from, perfect knowledge comes from the skill to know the difference between fact and opinion and to think for yourself instead of believing what the media or other people tell you. Add some common sense and wisdom and you might get close to obtaining perfect knowledge, but don’t get your hopes up.

Again you are just rambling but you can not back up your info.

You have refuted none of my assertions. Your post is nothing more than screed.

Thank you for proofing my point about you

The word is spelled "proving", sweetie, and you advanced no point to prove.

Perhaps the Post's editorial board felt the need to front page their endorsement of Romney this year to justify their 2008 "We're making history" editorial misadventure. However, reading today's endorsement is a faint echo from then, devoid of any enthusiasm (much like the candidate himself).

Do I see in the statement "... Romney is the best choice for the GOP nomination" the implicit qualifier: "That is, the best of a bad lot"?

Your headline implies that you favor Romney only over his Republican rivals. However, much of your article gives reasons why you think he would be a better president than Barack Obama. You start by claiming that Obama does not encourage, rather pillories, private sector achievement. You cite Romney???s intention to reduce the national debt by making large cuts in the federal budget, but neither he nor other members of the GOP have said what government services they would cut, or by how much. He continues to claim that Obama has grown the government, when that is not true. Instead of facing the hard reality that the defense budget must be part of the necessary cuts, in Colorado he proposed a large increase in spending on weapons systems and troop strength???without saying how it would be paid for; certainly not by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the first cuts during time of war that started the fast growth of our national debt.

You state that on abortion and anti-gay rights, Romney???s stances ???no doubt align with most in the party.??? Like the other candidates, Romney wants to overthrow Roe v. Wade, and force a victim of rape or incest, no matter how young, to bear the child. He also believes that the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, should be illegal, and favors ???personhood??? for fertilized human eggs that would make most forms of birth control murder. He also vows to overthrow the repeal of ???Don???t ask, Don???t tell.??? About 40% of Republicans claim to be conservatives, but many of those do not endorse Romney???s extreme positions on those issues. The adoption of those extreme positions made many former Republican voters feel that the party has left them, and cannot vote the straight Republican tickets that they used to.

Your editorial directs some well-deserved criticism at the other Republican candidates as why they should not be the party nominee. But you make no criticism of Romney, only praise like the party talking points. All this is why your readers believe that you are endorsing Romney over Obama.

The problem with Romney is he has no plan for where he would like to lead America. He only is beating Gingrich due to the amount of negative advertising he has bought. To me, Romney comes across as smart but indecisive and somewhat dishonest. His attempts to hide his tax returns is reflective of him not being particularly forthcoming when it comes to his policy positions. He has no plan to cut the deficit. He is soft on foreign policy. And his anti-immigrant stance is disheartening. I don't see a reason yet why I would vote for him over Obama. Romney has no vision as of yet and it is not clear he understands what he would like to do if he was elected. Obama got rid of Osama bin Laden and the economy is starting to turn around in America under Obama's leadership so far.

Promoting your time at Bain is a little like touting your expertise as a madam, except that a madam's work is more honorable. Romney spent his entire life running a business model he has decried as immoral and now, you want this amoral jack-Mormon to run the country? Bain has been called vulture capitalism, but even this is inaccurate: vultures only eat the dead. Romney is more like a professional parasite, as John McCain's 2008 briefing book lays bare: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski ... ccains-ent (Scribd copy) Also, see Erick Erickson's site: http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/201 ... PFLOPS.pdf for the short tour. It is not for the faint of heart.

SRSLY, DP? If Romney is the pick of the litter, Republicans would be forced to at least contemplate hari-kiri.

local_pol wrote:The problem with Romney is he has no plan for where he would like to lead America. He only is beating Gingrich due to the amount of negative advertising he has bought. To me, Romney comes across as smart but indecisive and somewhat dishonest. His attempts to hide his tax returns is reflective of him not being particularly forthcoming when it comes to his policy positions. He has no plan to cut the deficit. He is soft on foreign policy. And his anti-immigrant stance is disheartening. I don't see a reason yet why I would vote for him over Obama. Romney has no vision as of yet and it is not clear he understands what he would like to do if he was elected. Obama got rid of Osama bin Laden and the economy is starting to turn around in America under Obama's leadership so far.

Willard Romney has only one vision: avenging his father's defeat. George Romney was a flaming environmentalist, and the father of the Rambler; he crashed and burned when he admitted that he was "brainwashed" by the generals in Vietnam. This is why the younger Romney is so faithful to bland platitudes; despite that hesitancy, he has created quite a highlight reel.

Willard is George W. Bush with an intellect: he was born on third base, but thinks he hit a triple. When you look at what he did to get rich, you realize that he didn't create jobs, but stole money (albeit "legally") from others. How is this man going to be able to create jobs? He doesn't know how!

As for his "anti-immigrant stance," you do understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, don't you? I have no problem whatever with legal immigrants, but I do have problems with illegal immigrants taking jobs from our own people and degrading the wage base, and H1-B visa holders taking good jobs from our own skilled workers. illegal immigrants should be shown the border, and those who hire them, be forced to do the perpwalk. We should authorize qui tam actions, letting our own citizens deprive the robber barons of the money they save hiring illegal immigrants, and let Joe Arpaio run the prison for those who hire.